You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Very heartfelt, intelligent and logical, which is mostly alien to most physics of course.

I agree with almost all, including; "an analog emission of energy, of which the smallest measurable quantity is what is required to trip an electron to a higher energy level." And perhaps expend itself tripping a detector.

Can I ask you to consider the consequences of this; A 'particle' (perhaps concentration of superposed 'spin/oscillating' energy) pops up from the field when it's perturbed (say locally compressed perhaps due to a lump of mass in motion). It floats around innocently in the vacuum near the mass, moving with it at v, perhaps with many mates as part of a gas or plasma cloud.

A bunch of waves arrives. We might call it a 'signal'. Our particle gets charged up ('polarised is the term) and re-emits, or scatters the signal, at 'c'. This is standard atomic scattering.

If the mass was 'moving', it was wrt something, so the signal will have arrived with (your) space between the 'peaks' at N, but will be emitted with the speed adjustment v to make c. This is of course refraction, which slightly changes the path of the signal.

Our particle has mass due to it's motion, 'inertial mass', which as we know is equal to gravitational mass, increasing the effective mass of the big lump of mass it's hanging around with. if that lump slows down, our 'particle' will just evaporate away again, (just like photoelectrons in colliders) or perhaps even be 'annihilated'. This is all pretty well known physics.

Now take a different 'Bragg' view of curved light paths due to curved space time around mass, and gravity increasing with speed, and light always magically becoming 'c' locally no matter what speed the receiver/observer is moving at.

If you spend some time thinking that through, and with 20-20 vision, you may find a dark energy 'ether' is now allowed again, to allow communication for gravity and entanglement (but with a touch of red shift over distance, eventually taking it beyond the visible spectrum). So I think you were dang close! Let me know if there's anything is physics you can't see how it resolves.

I think I get a bit of what you are saying. Bit of thinking out loud here...

Consider it in terms of a version of the uncertainty principle as applied to the relationship between infinity and the absolute. With all of reality being expressed as manifestations on the scale between these logical parameters. Infinity is pulling the waves out to completely flat dissolution, while the absolute is constantly tripping them up as an inertial state of point particles. Now take it down to the range physics like to work in. Particles/waves, position/momentum. Does it fit that physical reality is a manifestation of the tension between inertia and infinity? Consider the idea of the holographic universe, where every point is a reflection of the whole.... Entangled particles?

It seems physics is more willing to consider an absolute, with the singularity, possibly black holes, but there is a tendency to shy away from infinity, yet what draws light out so far and so fast, except the void? If the universe were truly finite, it would seem the boundary would be evident, yet all we really see is what we don't see, the horizon line imposed by the limit of how far light can travel, before it completely fades away/ is redshifted off the visible spectrum.

These distances get thrown around as bunches of numbers, but think for a moment just how far that light from the edge of the visible universe has traveled. It has been moving at the speed of light for over 13 billion years! and we can still isolate it as coming from a specific galaxy. Could it be sufficiently clear, if it actually traveled as individual quanta? Given the ways this light has been bent through all the intervening gravity fields and crossing other radiation, it only seems comprehensible as a continuous emission, such that there is a continuum of light hitting that detector and the photons all develop at the same point on it.

I guess I'm getting off the idea of infinity and absolute, but it's a relationship I'm trying to find a way to understand.

I'm not arguing against the idea of C being relative to the particular field, such that this field could be moving at v, relative to another, but I do sense there is some element of inertia/absolute which is at the basis of mass and the tendency of energy to collapse into it.

Marius,

Thanks. These thoughts don't always line themselves up very clearly, so it's nice to get some confirmation that others see logic in them.

I entirely agree about red shift. Space had impedance. But I'm not seeing what you're seeing, and confused between infinity/ absolute/ inertia, which I see more as perhaps red wine, a continent, and a gyroscope. I do believe science is far more connected than we think, but I can't help you with those at present! except perhaps...;

From here, I see many local 'absolutes' as relative inertial frames. Do read my response to Edwin which explains better. You say 'bent', I say yes, but that is simply refracted by the plasma (which we know refracts) and also thus delayed.

And, yes, it's eventually red shifted into the infra red. It's so simple that black holes may even be red giants first before they accrete enough mass to fade from our visible spectrum, as with distance. Betelgeuse may even be close to becoming a black hole! It would be 'pulsating' in size as the event horizon moves with gravitational potential (and with a Lagrangian point not an 'infinite' singularity at it's centre of mass).

Think of it in terms of basic whole numbers, zero to infinity. There seems to be a tendency to treat fractions as another form of infinity, a la Zeno's paradox and to treat zero as little more than the point between positive and negative.

The question with physics though, is what is the primary state and how do we derive this complex reality from it. Many people like to focus on something, be it anything from a platonic mathematical realm, to a spiritual entity, to spheres, to photons, to singularities, to primordial intelligence. They all raise the question of where did the god/photon/singularity/etc. come from?

The only way to get beyond that question is to propose it all came from nothing. So what is nothing? Is zero a point between a particle and its anti-particle? What if there are many such dualities? Is there a field of "nothing?" If we can have a point as nothing, wouldn't it be worth considering nothing as a field? Doesn't it really make some basic sense, that rather than zero being the center point of the coordinate system, that it be the blank sheet of paper? The non-fluctuating vacuum?

Rather than the entire universe arising from a singular point of nothing, wouldn't it possibly make at least equal sense that nothing would be an infinite field underlaying reality? If every point in this field is potentially fluctuating, wouldn't that have the effect of expanding space? And since this fluctuation would be mutually attractive, couldn't it then collapse into vortices of negation? Isn't that effectively what we see, stripped of theory; expanding distances, interspersed by vortices of collapsing residual mass, which then pretty much radiates the energy back out across the vacuum?

So back to the question of why do I associate absolute and inertia;

For one thing, I'm considering a slightly different understanding of inertia. Conventionally inertia refers to an object in motion staying in motion. Yet this motion requires some initial force, so if we go back a step before even that initial effect, there is motionlessness. The idea of perfect motionlessness might seem meaningless in the context of a point singularity, but not if we are looking at this as a field. As the neutral state, this vacuum field is the zero point between all positive and negative elements.

With temperature, the absolute is the negation of all motion, yet not of space and what is inertia, but the absence of effect, even that of the initial effect?

I enjoyed your essay. You have packed a lot of good ideas in there, as usual, and never a moment to loose interest. I agree that the difference between counting and measuring is very important for how we comprehend reality.An interesting and original way of approaching the competition question.

I am reminded of the art lesson in which one must draw the spaces between objects rather than the objects themselves, to correctly portray their relationships. While the image produced allows the objects to be recognized it is irrefutably different from the image of the objects drawn without particular regard for the gaps between them.

Your point about the art lesson reminds me of the dichotomy between eastern and western ways of thinking. How they think in terms of context and we think in terms of objects. I wonder if modern physics had evolved primarily in an eastern environment, whether it would be anything like we have now, with the focus on particles, waves, fields, strings, etc, rather than seeing them as artifacts of a larger context. It's like we can see the other side and know it's there, but we still just don't see it from that side. It's like the spinning ballerina; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spinning_Dancer

In discussing the point I make about time being the future becoming the past due to activity, rather than the present moving from past to future, it's been pointed out to me that in eastern and native American thought, the past is in front of the observer and the future is behind, because one can see what is in front and knows the past, but can't see behind, or knows the future. From an objectively physical point, it makes sense as well, since events occur, then are observed and then the information moves beyond the observer. We, in the west, actually have the more primitive view, since the past to future perspective is essentially based on the subjective perspective of the observer, as they move through their context. Even in Einstein's fourth dimension, it is the motion of the point of reference in the three dimensional space that is the fourth dimension.

I guess the inherent physiology of this goes to the heart of why it is really difficult to change peoples views, since it's not even a conscious decision and people have built their entire world view on a particular perspective.

One of the reasons I focused on the cosmological question is that I know I'm not getting any attention from the PTB, so I took the chance that serious evidence against BBT might start showing up by the time these essay's are being examined. Quite a long shot, but there have been some interesting observations of very distant galaxies since then. Though, of course, no one is actually questioning the model. It will be interesting and Good Luck.

Cristi,

Sorry for not responding, but I became a bit overwhelmed trying to examine the various essays and have been only taking it in in small doses.

It seems to me that the point of your essay is that it is the way we think about things that creates in our minds what they are. The physics being built with those imagined realities. But that in itself may have been misleading and needs reconsideration. Which you do in your essay. Starting from scratch would not be easy at all. But getting the Duplo together right before the fiddly Lego pieces is essential.

Another part is the way things are that creates our minds, such as the right brain being a thermostat and the left a clock. I originally got this insight from E. O. Wilson, who described the insect brain as a thermostat. The point being it doesn't have any complex analytical or conceptual abilities, but merely reacts to energetic inputs. Which in many ways, describes the basis of our emotional functions. Hot/cold, attraction/repulsion, etc. It's that on/off, up down dichotomy.

On the other hand, our linear, rational side is effectively a form of clock, it that it's constantly calculating cause and effect, ie, using one click of the series to predict the next.

Then accord these two effects of motion, time and temperature with their spatial counterparts, distance and volume. When Einstein used three dimensions to describe space, he was using the vector of dimension to try to encompass the scalar of volume. When he was relating space to time, it was as a function of distance to duration. As I've argued previously, we could use ideal gas laws to say temperature is another parameter of volume, since changing the volume of a quantity of gas will have an inverse effect on its temperature. As a way of analogy, think of it as a balloon. If we reduce the volume, the temperature goes up, so like a ballon, squeeze it in one way and it bulges out another way. Just as with time and distance, if we accelerate mass close to the speed of light, its internal clock slows down, thus by increasing its external motion, we have the opposite effect of decreasing its internal motion.

Now because our rational side of the brain is the linear side, this correlation of vectors seems far more conceptually fundamental than the correlation of scalars, so "four dimensional spacetime" rings more bells than volume and temperature.

It's recently been proven that ants do know how to count footsteps, so they have a "clock" in their brains too.

Yes, yes, yes! I couldn't agree more John. This is just my kind of essay. This bit stuck out for me incidentally:

"What if there is some other way for light to be redshifted, proportional to distance? For one thing, it would make a far less complicated cosmology."

Yes, there is another way if the structural visualisation of the photon is envisaged. This is what's missing imo, a common sense pictorial representation of reality. Just as we know someone so much better if we've known them as they've grown up, so we will know the truth when we finalise a simulation model of reality from the moment of creation. It's not impossible or even too difficult imo. Just ditch everything and start from scratch. That's what I did and I think I've just about cracked the lot. Thanks again for an excellent essay which I've given you 10 for.

I think one of the primary conceptual fallacies afflicting physics predates the discipline. It is the basic assumption of time as the present moving from past events to future ones. While this is our evident experience, so is it evident that the sun moves across the sky from east to west. The problem was trying to construct of physical theory to explain it, prior to understanding the elementary fact that it is the earth which rotates west to east.

Same for time. It is the changing configuration of what exists which turns future potential into past circumstance. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Time is an effect of motion, not the basis for it.

Reality doesn't split into multiworlds at every quantum superposition. It's the collapse of those possibilities which is the future becoming the past.

There can be no dimensionless point in time because that would freeze the very motion creating it. Much like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. This lack of an absolute instant means an object cannot be distinguished from its activity, whether its a particle from its wave, or a car from its context.

We can't have free will if the present is dimensionless point between past and future, since we can't change the past or affect the future, but if it's the motion of the present turning potential into effect, our actions are part of the whole.

I think there are various other conceptual issues causing trouble for physics. For one thing, it's based on a western, object oriented view of reality, rather than an eastern context oriented view. So we keep isolating objects/particles/waves/strings/etc. from their situation and then find it's all kind of fuzzy and not as absolutely precise as we assume it must be. Just think how different modern physics would be, if it had evolved in the east. It probably wouldn't even be physics, but called something like "contextuality." We wouldn't be looking for supersymmetric particles, because we would understand opposites are not something which annihilate each other, but balance each other and give context and deeper dimension to reality. The yin and yang, up and down, positive and negative of everything.

It's sort of a simplistic view, but complexity only covers errors in logic, it doesn't cure them.

I like the simplicity of your thinking, yet don't quite agree on the points you're making. A lot of science did emerge from the east, when the Muslim empire was at it's zenith. I've done a lot of eastern book reading and although I think different worldviews help individuals in different communities the basic underlying dynamics of nature are the same. The results would be pretty much the same. Their interpretation of how we should live our lives may be very different, but the picture of reality if it emerged as a t.o.e from the eastern empire would be near identical.

I think I have found the stumbling block of modern physics btw. It is the simple idea of using an Archimedes Screw analogy to explain gravity. Newton missed a trick. Look at the dynamic diagram and see how this can represent a graviton. The red ball indicates the direction of force. Now imagine the whole screw moving to the bottom right of the screen. This is how a force carrying particle/wave can be visualised. When it interacts with another particle/wave a force of attraction is induced. Now imagine that this Archimedes screw travels around a wraparound universe, or hypersphere. It would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy. Think about it and you'll be amazed.

It does provide an interesting concept to explore the possibilities implicit in spin. Though with many ideas, it is possible to carry the analogy too far and lose the meaning, as you get wrapped up in the details. Sort of like the momentum of a pendulum swings past its point of attraction. I only say this because I'm not getting all the connections you are seeing, but have seen the propensity to over project too many times.

I guess my point about eastern ways of thinking is that I suspect we do focus a bit to much on what is actually physical and then the closer we examine it, the more blurry it gets. This leads to a point I don't have time to get into at the moment, which is that I think space, in having no physical properties, is both equilibrium state and infinite. Which makes it that invisible void, the missing piece of the puzzle, we keep trying to patch over with something physical, but keep getting lost.

John: okay, I was talking about the object reality, as defined in Georgina's essay, as being EXACTLY like a helical screw and not just an analogy. It's the image of a GRAVITON imo and can be nothing else. Do you accept the graviton idea or do you reject it for a spacetime continuum image of reality?

I'm somewhat cautious as to the nature of anything. I can understand how the idea of a screw might solve the contradiction of an attraction particle, but I don't know that the particle is the best conceptual solution for every effect. Gravity may well be a composite of attraction and vacuum effects. All that can really be said is that it's a property of mass/structure to consolidate, as opposed to the nature of radiation to expand.

But when one considers the work of quantum mechanics and the six building blocks of nature being six quarks, with spin properties, then this FITS the particle model. It's only Newton's inability to postulate a mechanism for the force of gravity that has left it in it's mathematical form. His equation denotes a lack of ORIENTATION for a particle mechanismfor gravity! He has left the solution lacking in detail. He has left the solution in mathematical form which dictates a non-particle solution. The graviton has no place in his famous equation. He has skewed science from the outset and Einstein never changed it for a graviton model. This is the reason for the current problems imo. The answer is easy. Just wait until the penny drops..

It's not like I'm really arguing it from a conventional perspective, but I think there is another side to it. Consider nodes and networks. In reality they create and define each other. Form follows function. By looking at the particles and trying to understand their interactions is like trying to understand the network only as connections of the nodes. You don't get the larger emergent effects. Physics doesn't seem to see these larger effects as they are. Their results just spin off into blurry multiworlds.

So are quarks actually some little particle, or is that simply a convenient designation for what is going on that we are not seeing?Maybe the three quarks are qualities of the proton, which we measure, but don't really separate. Maybe gravity is part of the larger emergent structure of mass. I don't know, but physics doesn't really know either.

We have always fundamentally disagreed, so there's no point rehashing the physics of spacetime.

However, I do appreciate that mathematics agrees with you on the difference between counting and measuring, and that it does lie at the heart of "why" digital and analog coexist. We measure probabilities (a continuous interval between zero and one) for a particle to exist; we count the discrete particles. There's a delightful story about the great Polish mathematician Sierpinski, who was waiting on a train platform with his wife, in a high state of agitation. "What's wrong?" she asked. "We're missing a bag," he replied. "No," she said, "all six bags are here." "They are not!" he shot back -- "I've counted them several times now: zero, one, two, three, four, five!"

How one starts counting determines the outcome, and certainly quantized spacetime depends on that "smallest measurable quantitity." Zero isn't measurable, however -- it's a number, but not a quantity. That's what Einstein was up against, the appearance of singularities.

While I haven't followed the thread of logic to really make this point before, I've wondered whether math doesn't treat fractions as a form of infinite regression, a la Zeno's paradox and effectively avoid dealing with some of the complications of nothing/zero. Using zero as a marker is necessary, but that really makes it a one. Geometry treats the center point of the coordinate system as zero, but if it is a one, doesn't that mean the blank sheet of paper, without any marks, is the real zero?

That's the thing, John. A blank sheet of paper, analogous to spacetime without matter, is a "real" zero insofar as the continuous functions of classical physics are concerned. The warping caused by matter makes it possible for us to differentiate that nothing from the curvature that is something. What's fascinating is that we know by observation that the overall curvature is very nearly 1.0 -- like a sheet of paper with a single symbol on it. Very suitable for a T-shirt, no? :-)

Geometry, OTOH, is abstract. The point is dimensionless, just the case of a line of measure zero.

Does the symbol create the sheet of paper, as would be premised by Big Bang theory, or does the paper permit the symbol? An expending metric, that of redshift, would suggest the first, but a stable metric, the speed of light, would suggest the second.

As an abstraction, we should treat geometry as a useful model and nothing more. Otherwise we must account for that other mathematical principle that multiplying anything by zero equals zero. So a dimensionless point doesn't exist. The problem so often with math is that people treat the principles they like as absolutes and ignore the ones they don't like and that defeats the purpose. The Planck unit is where divisibility meets its limit, but this is inherently fuzzy because defining it further would require a level of definition beyond the planck scale. Math is modeling.

I enjoyed reading your essay. Most was familiar to me from previous discussions we had in these blogs. But the style of writing was easy, smooth and clear. I liked it. Since we agree in many fundamental views (especially as it concerns cosmology) I hope your essay makes it to the 'finals' -- along with Peter's and Georgina's and Eckard's and many others that now seem to converge on the same 'view' of physical reality. Who knows. If a sizable number of essays in the final round play on the same central theme then our call for greater 'physical realism' may begin to be taken more seriously by the judges. I will definitely give you a good rating and hope you make it to the final round!

Recalling our discussions on cosmology. I have a curiosity and concern I like to share with you.

In my essay I show that Thermodynamics (The Fundamental Thermodynamic Relation as well as The Second Law) requires that physical time be 'duration', t-s, rather than 'instantiation', t=s. Thermodynamics as I argue asserts that 'every physical process (event) takes some duration of time to occur'. This, of course, fits well with my claim that 'there is accumulation before manifestation' of energy. My curiosity -- and physicist's concern -- is that Thermodynamics thus would seem to invalidate GR where 'events' in the Universe are given (x,y,z,t) coordinates in a spacetime continuum. Clearly, time so used in GR is 'instantiation' t=s, and not 'duration' t-s as I argue is required by Thermodynamics. And if GR violates Thermodynamics, wont then the Cosmology based on GR and deeply Thermodynamical, also be false?

This goes well with your notion of 'counting clicks' (instantiation) rather than 'counting the time between clicks' (duration).

I think spacetime geometry is equivalent to epicycles, in that it is trying to give a physical explanation for how time goes from past to future, since that is the bedrock of rational thought. As opposed to the simple fact that we have the relationship inverted, much like it is actually the earth which is rotating and not that the sun actually moves. Remember that for their time, epicycles were extremely advanced math and laid the foundations for much of the cosmology and physics that came after, once the correct pivot was established and all the parts came together in a much more simplified whole.

Safe to say, for those who have spent their lives loading the old program, this just "does not compute."

Having been following the news out of the LHC, they have pushed many of the boundaries for super symmetry quite far and haven't found any of what they are looking for. Combine this with the likelihood that evidence for a galaxy to be discovered, further away than the universe is presumed to be old, within the next few years, considering the current oldest discovered one is 13.2 billion lightyears away and I suspect the physics world is going to have some major earth guakes rattling in in the coming decade. Who knows, by the time this contest is finished in June, some discoveries, or lack thereof, might be rattling the china.

I'm no horseman like you but have been around them a bit. Standing next to a scared horse is very scary and somewhat predictible, kicking and running etc. Figuring out the universe is much less predictible... but possibly someday, a divergent and thought provking essay like yours (or mine) might eventually aid understanding. It is great to have this essay contest available!

I very much appreciate the title of your essay, your courage to address some holy but perhaps nonsensical flocks of cows and the current discussion that arose from this attitude.

It does not matter that I do not agree with you on all details. For instance, I am left-handed and familiar with a lot of details concerning the hemispheres of brain.

I just feel challenged to take issue because you wrote:

"We can't have free will if the present is dimensionless point between past and future, since we can't change the past or affect the future, but if it's the motion of the present turning potential into effect, our actions are part of the whole."

Of course, our actions and our free will are part of the whole. Nobody doubts that the past cannot be changed. However, why do you contradict e.g. Shannon? Why do you deny the possibility to affect the future? I see no logical alternative but to strictly separate in physics between past and future by means of a mathematical ideal, a point, something that does not have parts.

I consider at lest Georgina Parry and Albert Einstein people who are called presentists. They do not consider the present in the sense of an intangible demarcation between past and future but deliberately imprecise as for instance in expressions like today, this year, or in the time being.

The more I am dealing with the idol Einstein, the less I respect him. When I read his seminal 1905 paper on relativity, I could not understand many details because they were obviously incompletely stolen from Poincaré without any hint. Perhaps, the editor Max Planck did not see any problem because he was familiar with this stuff. Recently, a German minister of defense lost his job because his dissertation plagiarized work without giving all due references.

While my judgment on Poincaré's method of synchronization is not yet complete, the book "The Special Theory of Relativity" by David Bohm did not convince me. Has the question really settled?

I agree mathematically separating past from future with the present as a point is a very effective and logical model of the relationship, but it's still a model. To the degree I see the effect of time as a consequence of motion, I feel that being able to understand the process creating this effect means peeling away those concepts to see the foundation from which they rise. Georgina is better at fleshing out the argument, but we seem to be in agreement on the principle that there is simply energy, in its various forms, moving about in space. Due to our particular physical situation of being both personally mobile and immersed in this field of motion, it does create a dichotomous effect of whether we are moving through it, or it is moving around us. We conflate the effect of change in the environment with our own motion through it. Therefore we consider the future as being in front of us and to which we are physically moving toward. In many respects, this forces us to focus on that point of contact our immediate consciousness perceives, with our context and thus reality is perceived as existing at this point of the present. As Georgina has pointed out, all the information consolidated in that point of perception travels different distances and for different durations, so it is an amalgam of motion. In this sense, the concept of four dimensional spacetime is actually a very useful model, but must be understood as a model of how information and energy interact.

As I keep pointing out, there can be no dimensionless point in time, as that would be like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. Conversely, too long a shutter speed and everything is blurred together. Essentially our minds do function as just such a series of near instants, otherwise the world would be a blur.

So it's not as though I'm completely disagreeing with the various interpretations and understandings of time, but just trying to put them together as different perspectives of a larger reality. In that regard, I do focus on the two directions of time, etc, as a way to challenge convention.

As for Einstein, he has doing this work 100 years ago, at a time when monarchies still prevailed in Europe, the automobile, airplane, telephone, etc, were in their infancy and narrative structure had yet to meet deconstructionism. Yes, he does have many precedents and his hagiographers tend to edit these foundations, but that is life. It chews up the past in order to feed the future.

Do you really deny the line because it is too small for your car to drive on it? After its shutter is closed, your camera does not get input anymore. I hope you and Georgina will distance yourself from Einstein's presentism. Is there really a mysterious somewhere hidden process that creates time or could we agree that we need the notion time as to describe all processes?

I do not consider "the future as being in front of us and to which we are physically moving toward". I rather consider two aspects of the notion future:

- something particular that we can steer to some extent but not predict for sure and

- in a more general sense an abstract order of all not yet observable features of and events within certainly ongoing processes.

I do not see "our immediate consciousness" perceiving something "as existing at this point of the present". I rather see our consciousness a quite normal spatially distributed process located in the past as are all processes in reality. The point now is as abstract as central point of earth.

You wrote: "In this sense, the concept of four dimensional spacetime is actually a very useful model, but must be understood as a model of how information and energy interact."

Here I strongly disagree. I did not take the effort to read Georgina's discussion after I realized that her arguments got diffuse. Can you please summarize what if any I should try to understand on a clean logical basis?

What about Poincaré and Lorentz, did you deal with the synchronization on which spacetime has been based?

While I guess, the dissertation by zu Guttenberg was not important, Einstein might have stolen something wrong with definitely serious consequences for the history of physics, not necessarily something valid for good.

As I've said, I see time as an effect. We see evidence of things which occurred in the past, but as the energy radiates around, it moves from that event to our eyes and as our eyes are processing the information, it is of some prior event, but the occurrence of our perception is our existence. Now is as abstract as past and future.

"- something particular that we can steer to some extent but not predict for sure and

- in a more general sense an abstract order of all not yet observable features of and events within certainly ongoing processes."

I agree with both points. As I point out, the changing configuration of what is, turns potential into actual. Future possibilities merge into actual events.

The problem with the past to future arrow of time is that to the extent physical laws are fundamental, events which occur are those with the highest probability and thus effectively deterministic, but we don't know all potential input until the event occurs, since information can be arriving from opposite directions at the speed of light. So the total causes of any particular event are in the future until that event occurs and all probabilities are calculated by those fundamental laws of nature. The event then recedes into the past. In this sense, cause is in the future and effect is in the past.

In that sense, a big problem with physics is trying to incorporate the past to future arrow of time as a fundamental factor, rather than an emergent effect of motion. Projecting the deterministic past onto the probabilistic future leads to the concept of multi-worlds, as all probabilities exist as a function of the percentage of their occurring.

Pretty much the basis of human rationality is the result of past to future examination of cause and effect. So it is natural for us to consider it as fundamental, but this chronology is a function of examining prior occurrences and their subsequent effects, not a consideration of the physical processes in the act of occurring.

Time is different kettle of fish when we read about it in books and the linear series is known, then when it is occurring in our face and the possibilities are coming from all directions.

I find myself defending Einstein's relativity in conversation with you and attacking it in conversation with Thomas Ray, so I thought would cross post this observation to somewhat clarify my position:

Tom,

I realize there is a delicate and precise balance between light, mass, duration and distance, such that tweeking one affects the others, but let me try an analogy of why it rattles my chains, if I may;

You are the center of your perspective of the universe. As such you could develop a coordinate system of the entire universe, using your location as its center. If you were to do this, though, the earth would not rotate on its axis, but revolve in a loop around you, same with the moon and sun and stars, even the entire Milky Way would spin around your final resting place every 225 million years. This Tomcentric cosmology could theoretically be developed to be so accurate as to predict the location of the planets far into the future. Obviously this is what a geocentric cosmology does, with the earth as its center. When you get down to it, what really makes a heliocentric cosmology more useful than a Tomcentric or geocentric cosmology isn't so much the theoretical accuracy, as that it is vastly simpler and less complex.

The real problem with the geocentric cosmology was trying to develop a physical model to explain its mathematical structure. The solution was that all these planets were fastened to huge cosmic gear wheels and it spun around as an enormous clockwork. You point out they made a mistake by assuming circles were perfection and thinking they had to move in perfect circles, but I suspect the actual reason is more prosaic. Trying to make oval gears is far more conceptually, mathematically and technically complex than circular gears. In theory though, it might still be made to work. The fact though, is there is no physical evidence of these gears, just planets and stars making strange, yet precise loops around the heavens.

Now consider spacetime and relativity. Mathematically it is a very precise, yet also very complex theory that works with utmost precision. The problem is when we try explaining it with some physical theory and end up with things like blocktime, warped spacetime, time travel, etc. Just like those cosmic gearwheels, they seem necessary to explain what seems to be a very effective and useful mathematical theory, but there is just no physical evidence, other than that functional theory. As with epicycles, is some factor being overlooked?

We see evidence of things which occurred in the past, but as the energy radiates around, it moves from that event to our eyes and as our eyes are processing the information, it is of some prior event, but the occurrence of our perception...

We see evidence of things which occurred in the past, but as the energy radiates around, it moves from that event to our eyes and as our eyes are processing the information, it is of some prior event, but the occurrence of our perception is our existence.

E:

Isn't existence independent from perception? What about the role of energy, look at the harmonic oscillator in phase plane. Energy is in this admittedly idealized case expressed as constant radius while the parameter t proceeds along a circular path.

J:

Now is as abstract as past and future.

E:

of course.

(E:)

"- (a) something particular that we can steer to some extent but not predict for sure and

- (b) in a more general sense an abstract order of all not yet observable features of and events within certainly ongoing processes."

J:

I agree with both points. As I point out, the changing configuration of what is, turns potential into actual. Future possibilities merge into actual events.

E:

In reality only some possibilities, not all.

J:

The problem with the past to future arrow of time is that to the extent physical laws are fundamental, events which occur are those with the highest probability and thus effectively deterministic,

E:

I disagree: Even highly unlikely events may happen. Probability is only reliable with many trials.

J:

but we don't know all potential input until the event occurs,

E:

Often it is even after the event impossible to reconstruct all influences.

J:

since information can be arriving from opposite directions at the speed of light.

E: ?

J:

So the total causes of any particular event are in the future

E:

Such anticipation could at best be true within a closed system. In reality, it is reasonable to reject fatalism and to consider the future not yet existing.

J:

until that event occurs and all probabilities are calculated by those fundamental laws of nature. The event then recedes into the past. In this sense, cause is in the future and effect is in the past.

E:

Nature does not calculate probabilities. Any cause always precedes its past. I understand your fallacy.

J:

In that sense, a big problem with physics is trying to incorporate the past to future arrow of time as a fundamental factor,

E:

Isn't this illusory? I see physics obliged to separate between (b) where future time is just a void placeholder and (a) where future does simply not yet exist.

Up to now, physics operates with closed modeling systems instead of reality. For models, the future can indeed be calculated.

J:

rather than an emergent effect of motion. Projecting the deterministic past onto the probabilistic future leads to the concept of multi-worlds, as all probabilities exist as a function of the percentage of their occurring.

What is it that we measure? Changes of configuration, preferably those with regularity.

E:

Don't causing influences precede any effect?

J:

Yes, but there is no way to calculate how they will interact prior to the event, since information can be coming from opposite directions at the speed of light, so knowing all potential input requires that God like "objective perspective."

E:

Isn't existence independent from perception?

J:

Perception is a small, subjective part of existence. The problem though, is that there is no such thing as an objective perspective of existence, because "objective perspective" is an oxymoron.

E:

What about the role of energy, look at the harmonic oscillator in phase plane. Energy is in this admittedly idealized case expressed as constant radius while the parameter t proceeds along a circular path.

J:

We can only know that subjective part our minds register. The problem with knowledge is the dichotomy of specialization vs, generalization. As an electrical engineer, you have quite a lot of specialized knowledge about electrical properties, but someone who spend their life as a painter would have a completely different, yet equally valid understanding of the properties of light.

E:

In reality only some possibilities, not all.

J:

That's why they are only possibilities.

E:

I disagree: Even highly unlikely events may happen. Probability is only reliable with many trials.

J:

The point is that once a particular event has actually occurred, the odds of it having happened are 100%. Not that there are not many subjective arguments as to what might have happened, but all events that are in the past have that 100% probability.

E:

Often it is even after the event impossible to reconstruct all influences.

J:

True. That is why the idea that information isn't destroyed is nonsense. As I said earlier, the past is chewed up to feed the future. Energy is conserved, so old information is destroyed in the process of creating new information.

E:

Such anticipation could at best be true within a closed system. In reality, it is reasonable to reject fatalism and to consider the future not yet existing.

J:

In a closed system, there would presumably be a way to know all input. It is because the light cone of any event is still open prior to its occurrence.

E:

Nature does not calculate probabilities. Any cause always precedes its past. I understand your fallacy.

J:

Maybe "calculate" was not the right term, as it implies intent. The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes second. Tomorrow is the 7th of March. Shortly that date will be yesterday. So the arrow of time for the actual events is future to past. Now your point is that prior events precede succeeding ones, therefore the past is cause of the future. The fact is that it is never past, or future, but only the present. The same energy which manifested as yesterday, is currently manifesting today and will eventually manifest tomorrow. That energy is never in the future, or in the past, its existence is what is the present. As that energy moves around, it creates these configurations, Past configurations dissolve into the present configuration, which is dissolving into the next. Neither past or future physically exist because the energy moved on. Now until a particular event occurs, it is a probability, ie, in the future. The probability of an event precedes its actual occurrence. The future is the probabilities and the past is the effect of those probabilities being resolved.

E:

Isn't this illusory? I see physics obliged to separate between (b) where future time is just a void placeholder and (a) where future does simply not yet exist.

Up to now, physics operates with closed modeling systems instead of reality. For models, the future can indeed be calculated.

J:

That's why they end up with multiworlds. Our brains physically exist and thus are always present. Our minds are a record of events, as they recede into the past. If you view time as the probabilities collapsing and not as some fundamental dimension along which events exist, which splays out on encountering the future, then how (A) is separated from (B) makes sense.

E:

Well, preparation is possible. However it does not shift reality.

J:

Preparation is action, which does shift reality, though not always as intended.

E:

What about spacetime, I see its proponents mingling (a) and (b).

J:

They, along with the quantum theorists, are trying to reconcile how the effect of time, ie. the sequential series of events, is fundamental, without considering that the process of time, the changing configuration of what is, is the inverse. Much as we see the sun moving across the sky and spent millennia trying to figure out how, before realizing it was the ground we stand on that was moving the other direction.

I enjoy the word Tomcentric. Before the allegedly relative Poincaré desynchronization, there was no doubt: Fortunately, the Tomcentric time is ubiquitously valid.

J:

What is it that we measure? Changes of configuration, preferably those with regularity.

E:

Measures like temporal or spatial distance are means of comparison that are based on recognizable discrete features.

(E:)

Don't causing influences precede any effect?

J:

Yes, but there is no way to calculate how they will interact prior to the event, since information can be coming from opposite directions at the speed of light, so knowing all potential input requires that God like "objective perspective."

E:

Good point.

(E:)

Isn't existence independent from perception?

J:

Perception is a small, subjective part of existence. The problem though, is that there is no such thing as an objective perspective of existence, because "objective perspective" is an oxymoron.

E:

I did not use the expression objective perspective but I consider objective existence the only reasonable guess and always confirmed without exception.

(E:)

What about the role of energy, look at the harmonic oscillator in phase plane. Energy is in this admittedly idealized case expressed as constant radius while the parameter t proceeds along a circular path.

J:

We can only know that subjective part our minds register. The problem with knowledge is the dichotomy of specialization vs, generalization. As an electrical engineer, you have quite a lot of specialized knowledge about electrical properties, but someone who spend their life as a painter would have a completely different, yet equally valid understanding of the properties of light.

E:

I am claiming to be closer to logically foundational questions than an artist. He can create the illusion of getting younger. I am forced to judge reasonably.

(E:)

I disagree: Even highly unlikely events may happen. Probability is only reliable with many trials.

J:

The point is that once a particular event has actually occurred, the odds of it having happened are 100%. Not that there are not many subjective arguments as to what might have happened, but all events that are in the past have that 100% probability.

E:

Opponents of a clear distinction between past and future like Georgina argue, the past, while 100% decided in the present moment, gets increasingly uncertain, and they do not look at reality but on our possibility to retrace it.

(E:)

Often it is even after the event impossible to reconstruct all influences.

J:

True. That is why the idea that information isn't destroyed is nonsense.

E:

I meant it is often impossible to observe and analyze all influences.

J:

As I said earlier, the past is chewed up to feed the future. Energy is conserved, so old information is destroyed in the process of creating new information.

E:

Sounds as if we should burn all old books and destroy all fossils.

(E:)

Such anticipation could at best be true within a closed system. In reality, it is reasonable to reject fatalism and to consider the future not yet existing.

J:

In a closed system, there would presumably be a way to know all input.

E:

Yes.

J:

It is because the light cone of any event is still open prior to its occurrence.

E:

I dislike attributing mental constructs to reality. What is "the" light cone of any event? You meant the cone of future in the sense of exclusding impossible processes.

E:

Nature does not calculate probabilities. Any cause always precedes its past. I understand your fallacy.

J:

Maybe "calculate" was not the right term, as it implies intent. The arrow of time goes from what comes first, to what comes second. Tomorrow is the 7th of March. Shortly that date will be yesterday. So the arrow of time for the actual events is future to past. Now your point is that prior events precede succeeding ones, therefore the past is cause of the future. The fact is that it is never past, or future, but only the present. The same energy which manifested as yesterday, is currently manifesting today and will eventually manifest tomorrow. That energy is never in the future, or in the past, its existence is what is the present. As that energy moves around, it creates these configurations, Past configurations dissolve into the present configuration, which is dissolving into the next. Neither past or future physically exist because the energy moved on. Now until a particular event occurs, it is a probability, ie, in the future. The probability of an event precedes its actual occurrence. The future is the probabilities and the past is the effect of those probabilities being resolved.

E:

Here you are horribly wrong. Effects can only be ascribed to causes, not to probabilities. Consider a clock. Isn't is nonsensical to ask which energy is manifesting yesterday, today, and tomorrow? "Neither past or future physically exist". In what sense do you mean does the present time exist? You means only configurations exist. In that I agree. Nonetheless I see existing while of course declining evidence of what happened but no future fossils.

(E:)

Isn't this illusory? I see physics obliged to separate between (b) where future time is just a void placeholder and (a) where future does simply not yet exist.

Up to now, physics operates with closed modeling systems instead of reality. For models, the future can indeed be calculated.

J:

That's why they end up with multiworlds. Our brains physically exist and thus are always present. Our minds are a record of events, as they recede into the past. If you view time as the probabilities collapsing and not as some fundamental dimension along which events exist, which splays out on encountering the future, then how (A) is separated from (B) makes sense.

E:

I share and appreciate this insight.

(E:)

Well, preparation is possible. However it does not shift reality.

J:

Preparation is action, which does shift reality, though not always as intended.

E:

With shift of reality I meant shift of time scale in reality. You will agree that this is not feasible.

(E:)

What about spacetime, I see its proponents mingling (a) and (b).

J:

They, along with the quantum theorists, are trying to reconcile how the effect of time, ie. the sequential series of events, is fundamental, without considering that the process of time, the changing configuration of what is, is the inverse. Much as we see the sun moving across the sky and spent millennia trying to figure out how, before realizing it was the ground we stand on that was moving the other direction.

E:

Despite your adherence to presentism, you seem to be among the very few who can agree with a considerable part of my essay. I consider rewarding it.

Measures like temporal or spatial distance are means of comparison that are based on recognizable discrete features.

J:

Yes, but what are we measuring? In space, two points can simultaneously exist, but in time the initiating reference ceases to exist, when we get to the concluding reference.

E:

I did not use the expression objective perspective but I consider objective existence the only reasonable guess and always confirmed without exception.

J:

Objective existence is real, but perspective is subjective.

E:

I am claiming to be closer to logically foundational questions than an artist. He can create the illusion of getting younger. I am forced to judge reasonably.

J:

What artists deal in is perspective. They have to extract some narrative focus from that non-linear objective reality. Consider that people were creating quite lifelike sculpture 2500 years ago, but until they really began to develop vanishing point perspectives some 6/700 years ago, efforts to impart three dimensionality on a flat surface amounted to putting smaller objects between the larger objects, but without giving it that central point of focus, it rarely achieved the desired effect. A similar dichotomy exists between scientists and journalists, as scientists possess large amounts of information, centered around particular subjects and get overwhelmed trying to draw some manageable narrative thread from it, then accuse someone writing about it as being shallow and biased for focusing on points which might stand out, but loose their context. It goes back to the problem with perspective versus the underlaying reality. Currently politics has similar problem, as society grows ever larger. While it is said power corrupts, the underlaying reality is that power blinds. The ability to rationally deal with exponentially growing information is quickly overwhelmed, so even the best intentions get washed away and emotion prevails

E:

Opponents of a clear distinction between past and future like Georgina argue, the past, while 100% decided in the present moment, gets increasingly uncertain, and they do not look at reality but on our possibility to retrace it.

J:

What Georgina is trying to do is clarify that relationship between perspective and the underlaying reality. I think she is doing a very good job of it, but then I have a good idea what she is trying to express. As with anything, unless you are in a similar position to the perspective being drawn, the observation might as well be in another language. Much like a star chart drawn from the earth would be meaningless if we viewed the heavens from Alpha Centari.

E:

I meant it is often impossible to observe and analyze all influences.

J:

Yes, because perspective is not objective.

E:

Sounds as if we should burn all old books and destroy all fossils.

J:

They are views back in time, much like a star is information from the past, but much reduced from what was originally radiated. Consider the position of the person who wrote the original draft of that old book, a thousand years ago and what he would think of a fossil dug up then. Even though slightly closer in time, but not having centuries of progress in geology, anatomy, biology, etc. he would not have much information to contextualize it and likely view it as evidence of dragons. On the other hand, he would have far greater understanding of the immediate context in which that book was written, than we would have, though we might have more perspective of the larger political circumstance than someone directly immeshed in them might. Much like those star charts, they only make sense from their own perspective, but if we can still place them in that context, it gives us the ability to multiply our knowledge, much as binocular vision combines to give us greater depth of perspective..

E:

I dislike attributing mental constructs to reality. What is "the" light cone of any event? You meant the cone of future in the sense of excluding impossible processes.

J:

It's a good example of using a concept, that of a cone, in a slightly different perspective, that of the sphere of influence, such that it might clarify, but also might confuse the issue. It is a consequence of trying to define time, ie. the changing configuration, as another dimension, which is a spatial concept. Thus we have cones, which take the three dimensional sphere of influence, reduce it to a two dimensional circle and then project it along that timeline, such that the circle increases in diameter. If we simply projected out ever larger spheres of influence, there would be no way to incorporate the timeline, as the center would remain a point.

E:

Here you are horribly wrong. Effects can only be ascribed to causes, not to probabilities. Consider a clock. Isn't is nonsensical to ask which energy is manifesting yesterday, today, and tomorrow? "Neither past or future physically exist". In what sense do you mean does the present time exist? You means only configurations exist. In that I agree. Nonetheless I see existing while of course declining evidence of what happened but no future fossils.

J:

Isn't that "declining evidence of what happened," the particular configuration receding into the past, as it is constantly being overwritten by new configurations? Yes, effects can only be ascribed to causes, but the exact configuration emerges from the range of causal influences.

E:

With shift of reality I meant shift of time scale in reality. You will agree that this is not feasible.

J:

Basically, but if you increase the level of activity, you increase the rate of change. One ages faster with a higher metabolic rate.

E:

Despite your adherence to presentism, you seem to be among the very few who can agree with a considerable part of my essay. I consider rewarding it.

J:

Presentism still assumes time is foundational, but exists in the present moment. I simply see it as a sea of energy and the changing configuration creates the effect of time. Georgina does put a lot of effort into trying to clarify how time and the events used to measure it, emerge from this foundational activity. There is no point of the present, since it requires varying durations of input to coalesce into particular events. The more we try to isolate duration down to its shortest possible unit, the less input and information we receive and the smaller our perspective. On the other hand, if we go the opposite direction and try to include to much information, it blurs together, like setting aperture and shutter speed to large. It's a function of perspective. Our limitations are what give us definition and focus.

Thanks for the compliments, but thanks even more for taking the time to discuss it.

Nothing can happen in the very moment unless we ascribe a duration to it. Exact integration in physics requires restricting to possible causation, i.e. to influences that already exist at the considered moment.

Let me further check your arguments:

(E:) Measures like temporal or spatial distance are means of comparison that are based on recognizable discrete...

Nothing can happen in the very moment unless we ascribe a duration to it. Exact integration in physics requires restricting to possible causation, i.e. to influences that already exist at the considered moment.

Let me further check your arguments:

(E:) Measures like temporal or spatial distance are means of comparison that are based on recognizable discrete features.

J: Yes, but what are we measuring? In space, two points can simultaneously exist, but in time the initiating reference ceases to exist, when we get to the concluding reference.

E: Yes, anything can only move within abstract time. I see this one more reason to question spacetime.

(E:) I did not use the expression objective perspective but I consider objective existence the only reasonable guess and always confirmed without exception.

J: Objective existence is real, but perspective is subjective.

E: I see reality synonymous to objective existence and tend to avoid the ambiguous and possibly mistakable term perspective.

(E:) Opponents of a clear distinction between past and future like Georgina argue, the past, while 100% decided in the present moment, gets increasingly uncertain, and they do not look at reality but on our possibility to retrace it.

J:What Georgina is trying to do is clarify that relationship between perspective and the underlaying reality. I think she is doing a very good job of it, but then I have a good idea what she is trying to express. As with anything, unless you are in a similar position to the perspective being drawn, the observation might as well be in another language. Much like a star chart drawn from the earth would be meaningless if we viewed the heavens from Alpha Centari.

E: Doesn't she bring owls to Athens when she distinguishes between territory and map? What U am trying to reveal is the fallacy behind the definitely wrong argument the past is as uncertain as is future.

(E:) I meant it is often impossible to observe and analyze all influences.

J:Yes, because perspective is not objective.

E: Because even the best model is not the reality. Again: The map is not the territory.

(E:) Sounds as if we should burn all old books and destroy all fossils.

J: They are views back in time, ...

E: My English is shaky. Doesn't view mean looking at? .

(E:) I dislike attributing mental constructs to reality. What is "the" light cone of any event? You meant the cone of future in the sense of excluding impossible processes.

J:It's a good example of using a concept, that of a cone, in a slightly different perspective, that of the sphere of influence,...

E: I fear you did not get my point here. It doesn't matter.

(E:) Here you are horribly wrong. Effects can only be ascribed to causes, not to probabilities. Consider a clock. Isn't is nonsensical to ask which energy is manifesting yesterday, today, and tomorrow? "Neither past or future physically exist". In what sense do you mean does the present time exist? You means only configurations exist. In that I agree. Nonetheless I see existing while of course declining evidence of what happened but no future fossils.

J: Isn't that "declining evidence of what happened," the particular configuration receding into the past, as it is constantly being overwritten by new configurations? Yes, effects can only be ascribed to causes, but the exact configuration emerges from the range of causal influences.

E: I would rather say it is the sum of all involved influences. In case we can calculate the result it is in mathematical terms an integral. That's why I do not consider differential equations basic to physics.

(E:) With shift of reality I meant shift of time scale in reality. You will agree that this is not feasible.

J:Basically, but if you increase the level of activity, you increase the rate of change. One ages faster with a higher metabolic rate.

E: This would not affect the time.

J:Presentism still assumes time is foundational, but exists in the present moment. I simply see it as a sea of energy and the changing configuration creates the effect of time.

E: Again: The ideal border between past and future is a point, something that has no parts, no duration. There is no change possible in it. Any change is a process. If one considers moment when the process has finished, then all influences go back to somewhere in the past. It is likewise reasonable to consider predicted future processes.

J: Georgina does put a lot of effort into trying to clarify how time and the events used to measure it, emerge from this foundational activity. There is no point of the present, since it requires varying durations of input to coalesce into particular events. The more we try to isolate duration down to its shortest possible unit, the less input and information we receive and the smaller our perspective. On the other hand, if we go the opposite direction and try to include to much information, it blurs together, like setting aperture and shutter speed to large. It's a function of perspective. Our limitations are what give us definition and focus.

E: I am afraid Georgina is unable to admit that their presentist perspective cannot overcome the calamity you described. Of course it is reasonable to use notions like today that are deliberately undecided between past and future. Of course it is helpful to imagine a huge amount of processes going on right now. In practice it is anyway difficult to idealize processes as between each a point at the beginning and at the end. However, physics needs idealized models. When Einstein denied the separation between past, present and future, he confused physics with the belief in eternal life and with the unphysical notion of presence.

Unfortunately Georgina also failed to consequently argue against spacetime. Can we clarify really foundational matters without the readiness to hurt the mainstream if necessary?

Regards,

Eckard

Thanks for the compliments, but thanks even more for taking the time to discuss it.

Nothing can happen in the very moment unless we ascribe a duration to it. Exact integration in physics requires restricting to possible causation, i.e. to influences that already exist at the considered moment.

J:

Agreed. Time is an effect of motion.

E:

Yes, anything can only move within abstract time. I see this one more reason to question spacetime....

Nothing can happen in the very moment unless we ascribe a duration to it. Exact integration in physics requires restricting to possible causation, i.e. to influences that already exist at the considered moment.

J:

Agreed. Time is an effect of motion.

E:

Yes, anything can only move within abstract time. I see this one more reason to question spacetime.

J:

One of the points I make is that the same argument for time as a dimension of space could be used to say temperature is another parameter of volume. Beside the fact that changing the volume of a given amount of energy has an inverse effect on its temperature, in ideal circumstances, can you conceive of temperature without space? Plus that any given amount of space supposedly has some amount of energy, which would be recorded as having a temperature.

The reason this is not considered is that the sequencing of events is foundational to logic, but temperature is simply environmental, so there is less ability to view time objectively.

E:

I see reality synonymous to objective existence and tend to avoid the ambiguous and possibly mistakable term perspective.

J:

Reality and objective existence are the same, but our ability to perceive it is a complex process of deconstruction and reconstruction. Think about it in terms of how your sight functions. It is quite similar to a movie camera, in that it registers "snapshots" of perception, otherwise all the detail would be blurred together. Also it only registers three areas on the spectrum of light. We are defined by our limitations, because definition is limitation.

E:

Doesn't she bring owls to Athens when she distinguishes between territory and map? What U am trying to reveal is the fallacy behind the definitely wrong argument the past is as uncertain as is future.

J:

Objectively, the past does not physically exist, only the influences it has on the current configuration. To some extent, reverse engineering this configuration can be as problematic as predicting where it might go. Which is not to say that past configurations did not go through exact circumstances, but that those circumstances no longer exist and that does pose some clarity issues. Maps sometimes have the advantage of recording information which is no longer in the territory. To a certain extent, spacetime is a mapping device for fixing temporal coordinates. Prior to that, Newton's flow of absolute time assumed the slices of universal moments were naturally fixed. With relativity, the same event can be perceived at different times. Which is not to say, as is supposed, that there is no universal present, but that it cannot be judged in terms of fixed measurable points of reference. For those who assume that space and time are only functions of measurement, this is equivalent to saying there is no universal present. Then they are forced to assert block time, that the dimension of time is the same as those of space.

E:

Because even the best model is not the reality. Again: The map is not the territory.

J:

No, but if we could perceive reality in terms greater than the little snippets at a time that we do, it would, by definition, fry our mental circuits.

E:

My English is shaky. Doesn't view mean looking at? .

J:

Yes.

E:

This would not affect the time.

J:

It would affect the measure of time. Essentially one clock runs faster than another, but they both exist in the same present.

E:

Again: The ideal border between past and future is a point, something that has no parts, no duration. There is no change possible in it.

J:

Isn't the term "ideal" an abstraction? A dimensionless point is a useful tool, but conceptually flawed, since anything multiplied by zero is zero.

E:

Any change is a process. If one considers moment when the process has finished, then all influences go back to somewhere in the past.

J:

Our brains like these clear delineations, but under the discreteness, it is analog. Even death can be a slow draining away. And there certainly is lots of controversy as to when life begins.

E:

In practice it is anyway difficult to idealize processes as between each a point at the beginning and at the end. However, physics needs idealized models. When Einstein denied the separation between past, present and future, he confused physics with the belief in eternal life and with the unphysical notion of presence.

J:

We all need models to make it through the day. What if every doorknob you encountered, you had to evaluate its mechanism in order to open the door? I'm not Einstein, so I can't speak for him. I do know there are moments in the day when my mind seems spread across the universe and other times when it is obsessed by the most minor details. Einstein suffered from fame and the problem of having others take his every utterance seriously.

E:

Unfortunately Georgina also failed to consequently argue against spacetime. Can we clarify really foundational matters without the readiness to hurt the mainstream if necessary?

J:

We can offer up ideas and see if they have any effect. Other than that, the mainstream follows its own course. I grew up as a younger child in a large family, so I'm quite used to being ignored.

J: ... if we could perceive reality in terms greater than the little snippets at a time that we do, it would, by definition, fry our mental circuits.

E: Auditory perception has a time window of a few milliseconds. Already the primary auditory cortex A1 integrates over much a larger time span. I did not understand in terms of cerebral physiology what you meant with fried mental circuits. My English is shaky.

(E:) This would not affect the time.

J:It would affect the measure of time. Essentially one clock runs faster than

another, but they both exist in the same present.

E: In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

Arjen Dijkman defined reality as something everybody can agree on. You wrote "exist in the same present". Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a timespan "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

(E:) Again: The ideal border between past and future is a point, something that has no parts, no duration. There is no change possible in it.

J: A dimensionless point is a useful tool, but conceptually flawed, since anything multiplied by zero is zero.

E: Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

(E:) ... physics needs idealized models. When Einstein denied the separation between past, present and future, he confused physics with the belief in eternal life and with the unphysical notion of presence.

J: Einstein suffered from fame and the problem of having others take his every utterance seriously.

E: While he made this utterance in a letter of condolence, it does nonetheless repeat his disagreement with Ritz.

(E:) Unfortunately Georgina also failed to consequently argue against spacetime. Can we clarify really foundational matters without the readiness to hurt the mainstream if necessary?

J: We can offer up ideas and see if they have any effect. Other than that, the mainstream follows its own course. I grew up as a younger child in a large family, so I'm quite used to being ignored.

Julian Barbour won the nature of time contest arguing the only measure of time worthy of the name was that of least action between separate configuration states of the universe. I would tend to be far more wholistic and argue virtually any change of state, no matter how regular,or not, manifests duration. So maybe I should have said change, yet the...

Julian Barbour won the nature of time contest arguing the only measure of time worthy of the name was that of least action between separate configuration states of the universe. I would tend to be far more wholistic and argue virtually any change of state, no matter how regular,or not, manifests duration. So maybe I should have said change, yet the question is as to what effects change and motion seems the most concise answer. Of what? Well, whatever can be distinguished.

E:

Auditory perception has a time window of a few milliseconds. Already the primary auditory cortex A1 integrates over much a larger time span. I did not understand in terms of cerebral physiology what you meant with fried mental circuits. My English is shaky.

J;

Sensory overload.

E:

In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

J:

The main logical observation of relativity is that acceleration, gravity, etc. affect clock rates. The point being there is no universal, Newtonian measure of time. Since I think space is an equilibrium state, possibly if we were to scatter clocks all around space and the one registering the fastest time would be least affected by any acceleration or gravitational influences and thus the closest to this state of complete equilibrium.

E:

Arjen Dijkman defined reality as something everybody can agree on. You wrote "exist in the same present". Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a timespan "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

J:

"but sums of influences out of the past." At what point do these influences come together?

I don't know that I'd say reality is what everyone can agree on. Ithink alot of the depth and complexity of reality and life is due to the fact that it is elemental to have opposing views. They don't cancel each other out, but balance each other in a larger reality.

E:

I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

J:

True, but it is when these influences come together that that something comes into existence.

E:

Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

J:

The present isn't zero duration, because that would be like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. There would be no "sums of influences out of the past."

J: Julian Barbour won the nature of time contest arguing the only measure of time worthy of the name was that of least action between separate configuration states of the universe. I would tend to be far more holistic and argue virtually any change of state, no matter how regular, or not, manifests duration. So maybe I should have said change, yet the question is as to what effects change and...

J: Julian Barbour won the nature of time contest arguing the only measure of time worthy of the name was that of least action between separate configuration states of the universe. I would tend to be far more holistic and argue virtually any change of state, no matter how regular, or not, manifests duration. So maybe I should have said change, yet the question is as to what effects change and motion seems the most concise answer. Of what? Well, whatever can be distinguished.

E: Isn’t the notion universe holistic? While Rosen-bridge claims the opposite I do not yet see any chance to benefit from speculations that consider the world continued in excess of this logical encapsulation. As I confessed to Tejinder Singh, I consider it unlikely but not impossible that time and space have a discrete structure. At least I did not realize that any essay could envision something tangible in this direction. Aren’t enough other questions to be tackled that might have a better chance to prove foundational? I maintain: A bundle of such questions goes back to insufficient distinction between past und future down to the denial of the necessity to revive an appropriate mathematical basis.

What is foundational? Spacetime is definitely foundational to the history of physics in the 20th century. Is it really foundational to physics for good?

J: Sensory overload. E: Thanks.

(E: ) In my understanding time is a measure which does not depend on how fast a clock runs. Mors certa hora incerta can be ridiculed as follows: "It is absolutely certain, the clock runs incorrect."

J: The main logical observation of relativity is that acceleration, gravity, etc. affect clock rates. The point being there is no universal, Newtonian measure of time. Since I think space is an equilibrium state, possibly if we were to scatter clocks all around space and the one registering the fastest time would be least affected by any acceleration or gravitational influences and thus the closest to this state of complete equilibrium.

E: Of course, clock rates depend on forces. This can be observed and there is also no logical alternative to Galilei’s sound principle of relativity while I understood “relativity” as a presumably flawed concept. Why do you think “space is an equilibrium state”? Whom do you follow in that?

(E: ) Already St. Augustinus understood that there is not at all a time-span "present". I tried to explain that both "exist" and "present" are deliberately used as imprecise notions. What exists at a considered point is not just a configuration in the sense of hidden Markov models but sums of influences out of the past. Mathematics reflect this when it declares a state given by the value of a variable at a given moment but also all belonging derivatives. It would be more naturally to consider all integrals instead.

J: "but sums of influences out of the past." At what point do these influences come together?

E: At the ubiquitous border between past and future, and with different delays.

(E:) I suggest considering the existence of something as the actual sum of all influences into it.

J: True, but it is when these influences come together that that something comes into existence.

E: Yes, and it is reasonable to consider ongoing influence to the sum at later moments also existing. In other words, the past is unchangeable written and therefore more or less influential while the future does not act back.

(E: ) Infinity multiplied by zero can be anything. I do not consider ideals like point, line, and area conceptually flawed.

J: The present isn't zero duration, because that would be like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. There would be no "sums of influences out of the past."

E: Why not? I vote for a realistic use of point and line as unrealistic fictions. Hjelmslev mistook a point as a crossroad. Please read my essay again.

This goes to the understanding of what the prefix "uni" stands for. Does it mean "unit," or "unity?" One is a singular entity, which necessarily distinguishes between what is inside and what is outside. The other is connectivity. This distinction has great historical dimensions, as groups and organizations of people...

This goes to the understanding of what the prefix "uni" stands for. Does it mean "unit," or "unity?" One is a singular entity, which necessarily distinguishes between what is inside and what is outside. The other is connectivity. This distinction has great historical dimensions, as groups and organizations of people start out by defining their community in terms of connection and eventually this solidifies into an exclusivity which usually negates the essential nature and existence of whatever is outside, as the foundational philosophy becomes ever more hermetic. While this might seem unrelated to a discussion of scientific theory, the fact is that it forms how our minds function. As I point out in my essay, western thought is object oriented, while eastern thought is context oriented. We think in terms of units, while they think in terms of connections. So having originated from a western foundation, is it coincidental that we view reality in terms of scales of units, from subatomic particles, up to the entire universe existing as a singularity based unit? Then in the effort to make this philosophical projection hermetic, many complicating factors are trimmed away, thus we have light as these magic particles which pop into and out of existence, but cannot exist as anything but those irreducible objects. On the other end, we are asked to accept that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point and from this emerged time, space, energy and mass, with no precedents.

E:

Of course, clock rates depend on forces. This can be observed and there is also no logical alternative to Galilei’s sound principle of relativity while I understood “relativity” as a presumably flawed concept. Why do you think “space is an equilibrium state”? Whom do you follow in that?

J:

That's pretty much my own. Once time is described as a third order effect of motion, it leaves the question of just what is space. There are a lot of precedents for it to have some foundational function, such as the idea of vacuum fluctuation. What is the vacuum, if not space. What would fluctuation be, but a disequilibrium, which implies the existence of an equilibrium. Then there are the myriad problems of trying to conceive of space as emerging from a point. One of the issues I've raised over the years with Lawrence, Tom and others, is that if space truly expands from a point, what accounts for the otherwise stable speed of light? If it was truly space expanding, wouldn't this foundational measure expand equally? Instead, Big Bang Theory simply assumes a stable speed of light, such that if the universe were to double in size, two sources x lightyears apart would be 2x lightyears apart. That's not expanding space, but an increased amount of stable space. I think it goes back to the basic geometric assumption that the center point of the three dimensional coordinate system is the zero point, but a point is still a singular entity. Logically zero would be the absence of any particular references, ie. blank space.

E:

At the ubiquitous border between past and future, and with different delays.

J:

But the reality is that that point is a conceptual abstraction, while the physical reality is still just a bunch of energy moving around, from which we perceive whatever comes in contact with our point of reference. It doesn't stop, we just take snapshots of it and reconstruct our sequential sense of motion from these series of impressions. It not that everything exists at the present moment, but that it simply exists. The sequential referencing is entirely a function of perspective.

E:

Yes, and it is reasonable to consider ongoing influence to the sum at later moments also existing. In other words, the past is unchangeable written and therefore more or less influential while the future does not act back.

J:

Yes, but we are constantly encountering unpredictable input. The more we rely on past events to guide our actions, the less flexible we are in responding. Much as a computer that stores too much information will freeze. As long as our knowledge can incorporate new input, the future is an evolving continuation from the past, but when we can no longer incorporate new input, the future becomes a reaction to the past and the reset button gets pushed on that particular store of information. Evolution, vs. revolution.

E:

Why not? I vote for a realistic use of point and line as unrealistic fictions. Hjelmslev mistook a point as a crossroad. Please read my essay again.

J:

I was reading through it a few days ago and spend too much time thinking through the various points and ran out of time. Today, my ex called this morning and wants me to pick the daughter up at school, so time is running short again. Then I go to my second job, (for the ex, finishing up at her riding school) then tonight, If some part of the brain is still functioning, I'll try again.

J: ... we are asked to accept that the universe sprang into existence at a particular point and from this emerged time, space, energy and mass, with no precedents.

E: To me the big bang is an unproven hypothesis, a challenge to find alternative explanations of red shift. I do not consider questions that can definitely not be answered foundational (in the sense of something that carries a building, not in the sense of providing money). So far I shared the opinion that time emerges because I mistook it in the sense that possibilities are coming reality.

(E:) Why do you think “space is an equilibrium state”? Whom do you follow in that?

J: That's pretty much my own. Once time is described as a third order effect of motion, ...

E: Here you lost me because I refuse speculating without any tangible basis. How can motion and effect "emerge" prior to time, space energy and mass?

J: One of the issues I've raised over the years with Lawrence, Tom and others, is that if space truly expands from a point, what accounts for the otherwise stable speed of light?

E: Good point.

J: I think it goes back to the basic geometric assumption that the center point of the three dimensional coordinate system ...

E: Is there "the" Cartesian coordinates?

J: ... is the zero point, but a point is still a singular entity.

E: Hm. I am at variance with mathematicians because I consider points that are located within the continuum of real numbers as intangible as the center point of a ball. To me a line current is an ideal model and absolutely unrealistic.

J: Logically zero would be the absence of any particular references, ie. blank space.

E: Yes.

J:But the reality is that that point is a conceptual abstraction, while the physical reality is still just a bunch of energy moving around, from which we perceive whatever comes in contact with our point of reference.

E: Without integration we would not perceive anything.

J: It doesn't stop, we just take snapshots of it ...

E: A snapshot is an integration over a more or less extended part of the past.

J: ... and reconstruct our sequential sense of motion from these series of impressions. It (is?) not that everything exists at the present moment, but that it simply exists. The sequential referencing is entirely a function of perspective.

E: Our auditory sense is specialized to pick up and analyze temporal sequences. It cannot, of course, deal with the infinitely small very point of time. The input (not necessarily the source of sound) exists at caudal stages of the auditory pathway within windows of memory including the near past. The perspective is always backward.

Yes. Why does a mapping devise create space? With time, the changing configuration is being measured, but what is being measured by space? Distance? Volume? Space? Space is the primary axiom. The alternative is the proposition that everything, space included, emerged from the singular point. First the vacuum, then the fluctuation. Time and temperature are the vector and scalar of fluctuation/energy/mass.

I think lots of contestants are starting to vote, so it smoothes any particular votes.

J: Yes. ... what is being measured by space? Distance? Volume? Space? Space is the primary axiom.

E: At least I do not see any reason to speculate. I consider Cartesian coordinates a tool that enforces to arbitrarily choose an origin zero x,y,z=0 and the direction of x from zero to A which defines a planar area orthogonal to OA. The third choice is a point C in this area. If the distance OA is continuous then there are uncountably much of these choices.

J: I think lots of contestants are starting to vote, so it smoothes any particular votes.

It works just fine for geometry, but does it work for physics? This Big Bang model is based on the Cartesian formula and considers that all energy, as points of measurement, emerge from that point of origin and in doing so, create time and space as functions of measuring that emergence. The greater the distance, the more space and the greater the duration, the more time.

It works just fine for geometry, but does it work for physics? This Big Bang model is based on the Cartesian formula and considers that all energy, as points of measurement, emerge from that point of origin and in doing so, create time and space as functions of measuring that emergence. The greater the distance, the more space and the greater the duration, the more time.

As I pointed out previously, this doesn't explain why the speed of light, as the most stable measure of space, remains constant. If space actually expanded, it would be like stretching a rubber ruler. No matter how far you stretch it, there are always just twelve inches, they just get bigger. Why, if space expands, does it take more lightyears to cover the same proportion of space, not that light speeds up and covers the same proportion in the same time. So there is a stable dimension of space.

Let's reconsider the order of development: Instead of zero being a point, say it is the blank space and instead of all energy emerging from just one point and expanding out, say that every point in space is just a little unstable and occasionally breaking into positive and negative elements. Geometrically all of space would expand, but since it would be confined by the fact that all other space is exerting equal expansion, the effect would be accumulations of this energy and the tendency for it cancel out through combinations of positive and negative polarities, but since every element is unique to its opposite, these attractions between opposites don't cancel out, but create mass, as stabilized structure. Eventually these combinations get so large and under pressure and heat that they break the bonds of attraction between the positive and negative elements, so that these energies, either radiate out, or fall ever further into ever denser accumulations. The swirl of which eventually reaches a center point and this vortex ejects the remaining energy out its poles. All of which radiates out for billions of lightyears, further disturbing the equilibrium of space and keeping the cycle going.

It's a bit simplistic, but it doesn't require the various incongruous patches required to make the current theory work. All from starting with a blank space and not a center point.

Those are the public votes. We vote as contestants and to figure that out, push the link at the top of the list of entries that orders the entries by community votes. It doesn't give numbers, but it shows the current order of preference. I gave you a ten as well. I must admit I went through a bunch of essays and voted on them, based on not perfectly rigorous standards, as there are so many and I've been pretty busy to fully read more than a small number. Even so, it doesn't take a full reading to see how much original thinking, effort, logic and following the rules was put into it. That said, I still probably judged less than 20%. If I was judging my own, I'd probably give it a 7. While I certainly agree with my own logic, I didn't really put the kind of effort required, but mostly just wanted to have an entry and went more for shock value and historical prescience, than trying to win the contest. Not that too many people will look back through these in some future date, but if they do, then it's on the record that I didn't believe in the logic of Big Bang cosmology.

Good blog post, and excellent link from Israels refs. I also attach an up to the minute one Wilhelm has passed to me, and it's probably about time you followed that by looking at a recent preprint of mine ref a full paper in formal review.

Wills is a short review of another imminent publication; http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110223_blackhole.htm

My own is very fundamental and takes the discrete field (DFM) solution to CSL to some extraordinary logical conclusions. It's also consistent with your own views on the BB, and provides resolutions to a myriad of major issues, the smooth profile, the re-ionisation issue, the 'spiral' CMB assymmetry, etc etc etc.

It should not have been lost on you that while the redshift paper is quite brilliant, and fully consistent with the DFM (as is the other item above and all other latest data), they are all absolutely unequivocal in requiring an effective 'fluid medium' condensate of some sort (below condensed 'matter' - which cannot condense from nothing any more than it could in a big bang!).

Your arguments are generally excellent, but if you'll forgive me, and for positive reasons. I see two glaring weaknesses; One; the troglodytes will use and write you off with - the reversed tiem thing which is a perfectly reasonable way of looking at it but almost entirely semantic. .. And Two; the denial of any 'energy field' continuum (even though it's 2.7 degrees), which will neither let you in to the troglodyte society or endear you to the enlightened! (although I haven't heard you promoting that recently). With those two cleaned up a bit I think you have the basic concepts of a cast iron coherent theory.

Please read the enclosed and considering before responding. (It may prove a test of whether or not you can doing what you're asking the relativists running with blinkers to do, forget initial beliefs and go with the logic)!

Very best wishes

Peter

PS I'm waiting with interest for a response from Tom on his essay string.

I find your ideas of moving fields quite interesting, but given my own serious limitations of time, education and intent, can't really give them the attention they deserve and so tend to leave such more focused observations to those with the abilities to address them.

I do understand the two directions of time is semantic on some levels, but it does does address some vexing issues on other levels. It could equally be argued that whether the sun moves across the sky, or the earth rotates on its axis is an equally semantic distinction. Both are true, but the delineation of the relationship had significant effects on how humanity understood its relationship with the universe. That it gets dismissed, I find amusing, to put it bluntly.

It's not that I'm denying the energy field continuum, as I do feel my concluding observations on light as a continuous medium requires it as implicit, but that I feel there is a deeper issue about the function of space which gets overlooked. I'm not saying it even has any physical effect of attraction or repulsion, as both are forms of energy acting on other forms of energy, but that its very non-existence sets parameters that have consequences. Rather than go over the various points, simply consider that the alternative to an infinite and absolute field is the singularity. In simple geometric terms, zero is posited as the centerpoint of the coordinate system rather than the blank space. So before simply dismissing space as an effect of measurement, consider the parameters intrinsic in any alternative.

I will read, I promise!!!

Pardon me, but I have many friend who are complete troglodytes. Some of whom I have to go work with shortly.

John, I went back and did another read. Below is an interesting statement from your essay, but can you explain it a little further:

In fact, if light is an expanding radiant energy in an infinite universe, which could not further expand, it might also go toward explaining the effect ascribed to dark matter.Rather than some additional force of attraction within galaxies, it would be a source of external pressure on them. Given it is the rate at which the outer bands of these galaxies move that is in question, this external solution would be fitting.

If space "expands," but the universe is infinite and therefore cannot expand, as all areas maintain equal pressure on other areas and this expansion is balanced by the contraction of gravity, resulting in overall flat space which it appears to be, then not only is gravity pulling mass inward, but what would be causing space to expand, whether simply radiation from all galaxies within the billions of lightyears which light can travel, or vacuum fluctuation, would be external pressure on these systems.

The assumption is that this additional spin must be due to extra attraction within the galaxy, but why couldn't it be due to external pressure on the galaxy? Especially since the motion in question is primarily on the outer edges.

Obviously this would seem a negligible amount of pressure, but I think that the idea the entire universe is only 13.7 billion years old is like thinking the earth is only the biblical 6000 years old. Currently the oldest discovered galaxy is at 13.2 billion lightyears. Which means it would have to grow large enough to shine that far in only 500 million years. So I think the universe is infinitely old and these processes take much longer to develop momentum and size.

Also the gravity fields of galaxies extend much further out than the visible edges, so the combination of various forces, electromagnetic, gravitational and external pressure would combine to make what amount to the middle range, even though it is the edge of what is visible, spin at close to the same rate as the inner bands.

I agree it's one of my less clear points, but I thought I'd stick it in there anyway.

I noticed that in a comment to John Gadway you said: "I first began studying physics in a search for objectivity, but find the field rife with many of the same conceptual and professional contradictions inherent in other fields."

Welcome to the real world.

You also said: "I think we are all waiting for the denouement, such as not discovering super-symmetric particles by the LHC, or the discovery of galaxies older than the presumed age of the universe, in order to have the space for new ideas to flourish."

As I've remarked to you elsewhere, my GEM theory has for five years predicted no Higgs and no SUSY (Super-Symmetry) and no other new particles.

The response to this from many has been "There has to be SUSY!"

But this morning my 3 Mar 2011 issue of NATURE said that over a year of searching at LHC has failed to find any evidence of super-particles (or the Higgs), and if SUSY is not found by the end of the year, the theory is in serious trouble (some already say that 'SUSY is dead'.)

Nature says "SUSY's utility and mathematical grace have instilled a "religious devotion" among its followers" some of whom have been working on the theory for thirty years.

The key statement in the article is this:

"This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

You quoted: "This is a big political issue in our field. For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track."

Didn't my essay 527 last year claim that these options might have overlapped?

So far, I suspected all those who attacked transfinite numbers and SR to be just cranks. I beg FQXi for pardon if I have to admit that discussions here opened my eyes.

I do not yet entirely agree with John Merryman, and his mathematical background might be limited. Nonetheless I acknowledge his honest and perhaps correct attitude and decided to rate his essay together with the discussion it sparks worth 10. If you aren't one of the two 8 voters, I would like to ask you for doing the same.

Edwin and I have some philosophical agreements, but we disagree on the necessity of Big Bang cosmology. Since it is foundational to his physics and I'm trying to refute it in this particular essay, he can't really afford to grade me too highly.

That I'm doing as well as I am surprises even me. He would be rating me in the community rating and those are the public ratings that are numbered. If you push the community ratings link at the top of the essay list, it will organize them in order of current preference, but not give any scores.

I guess the fact I only have two high scores on the public rating means 1) few are reading it, or 2) They down quite know what to make of it sufficiently to score it.

Eckard, I do appreciate your remarks about John, and he is correct about our agreements and disagreements (though not about how I can 'afford' to vote).

I normally do not discuss my voting, and as John points out, our votes are not showing up except indirectly. I gave one high vote to the 'Virtual Reality' essay because I thought it so wrong that it needed to be seen, argued, and rejected, but the comments go so long unanswered that I have given up there, and I regret that vote.

It's encouraging that there are a couple of us 'outsiders' who are not currently professors in academia yet are showing up with high ranking. I hope this stands after the members get through with their 3 votes for each of ours.

And as for, "I have to admit that discussions here opened my eyes", that is very hard for most people to admit, and I admire you for that. Like you I too have been given occasion to rethink special relativity. FQXI truly is a valuable forum, and I have learned new things from this contest.

I do agree that John is a very valuable member of the fqxi participants.

The politics of physics can be as interesting as the physics of politics, but in these discussions, what is most interesting is the physics of the politics of physics, as in many respects, it is a matter of trying to erect that formal top down structure to define the bottom up dynamics, with the various factions occupying the particular islands of their models of stability in this sea and froth of untamable energy.

The self styled masters of the universe perched in their ivory towers, like bankers in the skyscrapers of Manhattan, juggling multiverses like they were billion dollar derivatives.

Thanks - I read the Disney article. I tried to open the Perez link but it is down. I will read the longer articles after I read a few more essays by the deadline. You know - I once wrote a crazy paper on Dark Energy that I sent to about a dozen physicists. In it (among other things) I asked: if the more distant galaxies are traveling faster than the nearer ones, but the light is older from the more distant galaxies, then doesn't that make a case for galaxies moving slower now than in the past and hint at deceleration???

Anyway - I hope you get a chance to read my essay before the deadline. I always look forward to your perspective.

Thank you for reading my essay and viewing it favorably. I've read yours and am considering how to comment. Thomas Mcfarlane also proposed a digital view, but his approach was more of a philosophy of science view and I made a counter argument, but your approach is a concise, but very detailed history of the evolution of current theory, which makes it much more complicated to construct a coherent rebuttal, as my issues with current theory have much more to do with the primary assumptions, than the details of its construction.

Although I have constructed my essay with the purpose of offering a possible solution to the vacuum energy problem, and to examine the implications of a minimal-wavelength field, I try very much to stay open-minded, especially since the scope of reality is so vast. I applaud your analysis of light and matter that looks at a variety of aspects, including how our brains perceive luminous input. I would certainly agree that light is wavelike as well as particle-like, well-established by the double-slit experiment, Compton effect, photoelectric effect, and so forth. In fact, my essay addresses a "smallest wavelength."

I enjoyed your detailed response on my page (and I have offered my own comments). It is great to have the opportunity to read essays such as yours and to be able to consider a variety of viewpoints.

You have very good knowledge of what is going on in the cosmos and your essay is exhilerating.You say that both digital and analog concepts are needed to comprehend reality and relating their origin to both parts of the brain.But how both parts of the brain,if they are seperate,coordinate to say that both digital and analog concepts are needed to comprehend reality unless the brain assimilates information from its both parts as one bit and thereby comprehends reality?

Hope you got to read my essay as promised. Just to confirm, you got the high rating from me your clear thinking and reality basis deserves, I hope you've done the same for me or will do as time's almost up! My thread's also very interesting, but now also very long!!

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

“We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest “Is Reality Digital or Analog”. Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or “ultimate” nature of reality.

Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called “established theories” due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg’s boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb’s law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined “reality” and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

A set of thirty-five finalists (the “Finalists”) have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as “Community evaluators”. Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

Most contestants are followers of what they call as “mainstream physics”. Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog “refers, at least implicitly, to the ‘ultimate’ nature of reality, the fundamental layer.” He admits that “I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms.” Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about “speculative scenario”. Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) “Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you.” There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light”.